In re Application of Shin - The Court holds that NRS 179.245(5), which prohibits Nevada courts from sealing records concerning sexually based offenses, does not improperly impinge upon the power of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners to issue pardons. Although the Pardons' Board has expansive powers, it does not have the power to remove the historic fact that a conviction occurred and it cannot bequeath innocence. A pardon is an act of forgiveness that restores civil rights and removes most legal consequences of a criminal conviction, but there is no right to expunge a criminal record in the absence of legislative authority. The opinion includes a lengthy discussion of the authority of the Pardons Board.

Mack v. Estate of Mack - The Court holds that (1) it may take judicial notice of the outcome of proceedings in which one spouse was adjudged to have murdered the other; (2) a nunc pro tunc order was properly entered to memorialize a judge's oral orders; (3) the district court properly issued a Qualified Domestic Relations Order during the deceased's spouse's lifetime; and (4) Nevada's slayer statute is not preempted by ERISA.

Yesterday the Court issued an opinion in Knowles v. Mirzayance. Justice Thomas authored a unanimous opinion as to the result and the finding of no prejudice, and a 6-3 decision on an issue of whether counsel's performance was deficient. The Court reversed a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which had held that trial counsel was ineffective for counseling a client to withdraw a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity after concluding that such a theory was not viable.

Today the Court issued an opinion in Puckett v. United States. In the 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), a defendant was obligated to object at a sentence hearing to the State's violation of the plea agreement. Because the defendant failed to do so, a plain-error standard of review was applied to the unpreserved issue. Justice Souter issued a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Stevens.

Monday, March 23 10:00 a.m. - US Supreme Court hears argument in Yeager v. United States - whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the government from retrying defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts on which the jury failed to reach a verdict.

Tuesday, March 24 10:00 - US Supreme Court may issue one or more opinions and then hears argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - concerning the constitutionality of limiting the broadcast of a compaign film attacking a presidential candidate and the validity of disclosure rules.

Tuesday, March 24 12:00 - State of the Judiciary Speech by Chief Justice Hardesty

Wednesday, March 25 10:00 - US Supreme Court may issue one or more opinions and then hears argument in United States v. Denedo - concerning the jurisdiction of military appeals courts over an ex-service member's case.

The committee will meet again in a few weeks after completion of candidate background checks and will conduct more indepth interviews with the nine. It will then narrow the list to six, whose names will be forwarded to the Clark County Commission.

The Commission will then select two to fill vacancies left by the election of Abbi Silver and Doug Smith to the District Court. The two appointees will serves as Justices of the Peace until January 2011, at which time those positions will be filled by whomever wins the November 2010 elections for those two positions.

10:00 a.m. Amato v. State - Did the improper preservation of trial transcripts prevent a meaningful review by the Supreme Court?

10:30 a.m. Saintal v. State - Whether verdicts for two charges were inconsistent where stolen items were charged as being worth more than $250 for grand larceny charges, but less than $250 for a conspiracy to possession stolen property charge. Whether the Appellant's designation as a habitual criminal and the life sentence for each count amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

10:00 a.m. Gibbens v. State - Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction for first-degree murder for a 15 year old who shot his 12 year old friend.

10:30 a.m. Bradford v. State - Whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing the State to question the Appellant about his gang affiliation. Whether the district court properly instructed the jury about the deadly weapon enhancement and adoptive admissions.

10:00 a.m. In re: Parental Rights as to Raleigh - Whether the district court properly terminated a mother's parental rights?

10:30 a.m. Murphy v. State - The defendant was convicted for second-degree kidnapping for the abduction of a child. Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the Appellant's prior bad acts, specifically, an alleged sexual assault of an 11-year old child in Missouri.

Vermont v. Brillion - The Vermont Supreme Court held that counsel assigned to represent an indigent client were state actors for the purpose of a speedy trial violation and attributed delays caused by assigned counsel to the State for analysis under the Barker v. Wingo test. The US Supreme Court reversed this holding and held that assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent. The Vermont Supreme Court also failed to adequately take into account the role of the defendant's own disruptive behavior (he had six attorneys - he "fired" one and threatened to kill another). Delay resulting from a systemic breakdown in the public defender system, however, could be charged to the State. The opinion was authored by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Stevens.

Kansas v. Colorado - calculation of witness fees for cases within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Justice Alito authored an opinion for the unanimous Court. Justice Roberts authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Souter.

Bartlett v. Strickland - redistricting and the Voting Rights Act. In a 5-4 decision the Court holds that the federal voting rights law does not require the creation of a new legislative district when that would include a racial minority group that has less than 50 percent of the population, as a remedy when minority voters' rights have been diluted. Scotusblog provides analysis of the decision.

The Court granted certiorari in one case - Jones v. Harris Associates. It addresses shareholder claims and the Investment Company Act. Scotusblog provides links to the opinion below and cert. filings.

Negusie v. Holder - An alien who fears persecution in his homeland and seeks refugee status in this court is barred from obtaining that relief if he has persecuted others. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the persecutor bar applies even if the alien's assistance in persecution was coerced or otherwise the product of duress. The US Supreme Court reversed that holding as the BIA misaplied the Fedorenko case in making its interpretation.